|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
igotthisguitar
Joined: 08 Apr 2003
Location: South Korea (Permanent Vacation)
|
 Posted: Thu Sep 27, 2007 6:14 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
Why?
Simple.
Because Israel is good ... & Iran is baaaaaaaaaad.
Case closed. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
thiophene
Joined: 15 Sep 2007
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 27, 2007 7:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| igotthisguitar wrote: |
Why?
Simple.
Because Israel is good ... & Iran is baaaaaaaaaad.
Case closed. |
Baaaaaaaaaad to the bone |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Dome Vans
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 27, 2007 7:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| igotthisguitar wrote: |
Why?
Simple.
Because Israel is good ... & Iran is baaaaaaaaaad.
Case closed. |
Israel poses no threat to anyone, except when they launch a pre-emptive strike on whichever neighbouring country they want to and get backed up by their poodle, America. Iran on the otherhand hasn't launched an attack on anyone, and is full of hot air, as it is with most middle eastern countries, the leaders like to look powerful when they are not. Saddam was a good case in point.
I'll let you work out who is the most dangerous here. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 27, 2007 8:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Dome Vans wrote: |
| Iran...hasn't launched an attack on anyone, and is full of hot air, as it is with most [M]iddle[-][E]astern countries, the leaders like to look powerful when they are not. Saddam was a good case in point. |
Palpable nonsense.
I take it you are limiting "attack" to mean "conventional military attack" only. But your citing Saddam complicates this.
In any case, Tehran poses a threat to American and Israeli security and interests in the Middle East. Judging by Berlin and Paris's recent remarks, you might also recognize that Western Europeans, too, deem Tehran a threat to their security.
We have not even begun to get into Iranian-sponsored covert action and terrorism in and beyond the Middle East -- partly because Tehran is consciously an opaque and not a transparent government; and partly because most people in fora like these remain only interested in discussing American-sponsored covert action and other forms of unofficial diplomacy and aggression.
And you seem to have forgotten that, at one time, Saddam commanded the fourth most-powerful army in the world and he indeed deployed it to take Kuwait and then threaten Saudi security.
Your hatred for America and American interests blinds you to this history and these realities on the ground and leads to what is becoming one of the worst forms of apologia -- especially that which favors Ahmadinejad and seeks to downplay his Holocaust denials, for example -- I have ever seen. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Pluto
Joined: 19 Dec 2006
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 27, 2007 8:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Gopher wrote: |
| Dome Vans wrote: |
| Iran...hasn't launched an attack on anyone, and is full of hot air, as it is with most [M]iddle[-][E]astern countries, the leaders like to look powerful when they are not. Saddam was a good case in point. |
Palpable nonsense.
I take it you are limiting "attack" to mean "conventional military attack" only. But your citing Saddam complicates this.
In any case, Tehran poses a threat to American and Israeli security and interests in the Middle East. Judging by Berlin and Paris's recent remarks, you might also recognize that Western Europeans, too, deem Tehran a threat to their security.
We have not even begun to get into Iranian-sponsored covert action and terrorism in and beyond the Middle East -- partly because Tehran is consciously an opaque and not a transparent government; and partly because most people in fora like these remain only interested in discussing American-sponsored covert action and other forms of unofficial diplomacy and aggression.
And you seem to have forgotten that, at one time, Saddam commanded the fourth most-powerful army in the world and he indeed deployed it to take Kuwait and then threaten Saudi security.
Your hatred for America and American interests blinds you to this history and these realities on the ground and leads to what is becoming one of the worst forms of apologia -- especially that which favors Ahmadinejad and seeks to downplay his Holocaust denials, for example -- I have ever seen. |
You didn't mention Hezballah. A group heavily funded by Iran. They share the same strategic interest in wiping Isreal off the map. In fact, Hassan Nasrallah, Hezballah's leader, once stated, "I wish all the jews would gather in Isreal because it would make it easier to kill them all." Full of hat air indeed.
Last edited by Pluto on Thu Sep 27, 2007 8:44 pm; edited 2 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 27, 2007 8:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
To the Iran apologists, you know who you are:
Attacking America or Israel does not let Iran off the hook. Should Iran develop nuclear weapons, it would be in violation of NPT. It really is that simple.
I have not held America up as a standard to follow, which is lost on Cerulean, but much appears to be lost on Cerulean. Neither is Israel. But it would be neo-con logic to suggest that Iran is exceptional, and can use the actions of others to justify its own wrongs. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 27, 2007 8:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Thanks, Pluto. Your citing Hezbollah reminds me that I should edit "guerrilla activities" for "terrorism" in my post above. Should obey my own rules on vocabulary.
In any case, would be nice to explore Iranian govt archives and see what there is to see.
Also, my citing Saddam as a one-time military force-to-be-reckoned-with does not mean that I support the W. Bush Administration's Iraqi War 2003-present. Saddam commanded real military power through 1990-1991; the W. Bush Administration's attacking him in 2003 was an unjust war. Both are true. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Dome Vans
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 27, 2007 8:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| Your hatred for America and American interests blinds you to this history and these realities on the ground and leads to what is becoming one of the worst forms of apologia -- especially that which favors Ahmadinejad and seeks to downplay his Holocaust denials, for example -- I have ever seen. |
Didn't expect anything less from your good dismissive self there Gopher.
| Quote: |
| And you seem to have forgotten that, at one time, Saddam commanded the fourth most-powerful army in the world and he indeed deployed it to take Kuwait and then threaten Saudi security. |
That may have been so but how did he become so powerful? Surely it can't have been anything to do with America funding and protecting him. Surely not.
One big question: Why didn't the 'allies' take out Saddam completely when he was at his most dangerous during the Kuwait war? Why wait another 14 years to capture him? He was a useful pawn in America's dangerous 'plan' for the Middle East. To me and most others that is plainly wrong but maybe you beg to differ?
| Quote: |
| In any case, Tehran poses a threat to American and Israeli security and interests in the Middle East. Judging by Berlin and Paris's recent remarks, you might also recognize that Western Europeans, too, deem Tehran a threat to their security. |
I like the use of the word interests here. What are we talking oil, religion etc. To any layperson, Israel can go swing. They are dangerous and because they are protected by the States can do what they want, hence the word, poodle = America. Maybe something to do with this:
| Quote: |
| EVANGELICAL BUSH'S IRAQ WAR IS "DRESS REHERSAL FOR ARMAGEDDON" SAYS HEAD OF JERUSALEM PRAYER TEAM "Armageddon may or may not be televised. But if Dr. Mike Evans has his way, his newly launched Evangelical Israel Broadcasting Network will be broadcasting directly from the scene. Dr. Evans, who heads the Jerusalem Prayer Team, believes a war with Iraq could be a "dress rehearsal for Armageddon" -- the fulfillment of biblical prophecy. Although there is by no means unanimity on the question of Iraq and Armageddon, Dr. Evans' reading of the Bible may help explain why many conservative Christian fundamentalists are supporting President Bush's push toward a war with Iraq. " 3.16.03 |
http://www.bushwatch.com/evangelist.htm
That's the biggest problem. The people behind the 'puppet'. Israel is the place for armageddon. That is why it has so much future importance to the religiously delusional government. To me I want my politicians to base their judgements and running of the country on fact and reasonable thinking. Religion is not this.
| Quote: |
| what is becoming one of the worst forms of apologia |
You'll find that your denial of the root of the problems and staunchly defending something so ethically and morally corrupt easily outweighs this Gopher. Learn to look at both sides. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
The_Conservative
Joined: 15 Mar 2007
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 27, 2007 8:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| thiophene wrote: |
| The_Conservative wrote: |
If Iran withdraws from the NPT, then they are not bound by its terms. But they have not done so, and are developing nuclear weapons illegally. That is why they should not have them (regardless of whether they subsequently withdraw or not) as they have shown by this illegal action (not to mention all the others) that they can not be trusted with nuclear weapons. Israel on the other hand is supposed to have had nuclear weapons from '67 or '68 and has never used them. It has demonstrated responsibility in that matter. And unlike Iran, such development was not illegal. |
lol so it's because someone signed a paper that they don't deserve nuclear energy?
If you sign a legal binding contract to that effect then yes. But show me in the NPT where it says that nation states can not develop nuclear energy for peaceful purposes. Iran is not. From what we know of its activities it appears to be using stuff that is enriched...you know, the stuff to make a bomb. And refusing to let people verify does not do much to ensure trust.
peopel deserve to be bombed and their lives destroyed because of this paper?
If you repeatedly threaten another nation and swear to destroy and and kill all its people and then attempt to develop WMD then you deserve everything you have coming to you.
And fyi, USA and Russia are in breach as well since they're not taking the disarmament seriously (second pillar).
Irrevelent...and as usual you fail to provide any links.
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
The_Conservative
Joined: 15 Mar 2007
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 27, 2007 8:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Dome Vans wrote: |
| [ Iran on the otherhand hasn't launched an attack on anyone, . |
Thank goodness you don't teach history. During the Iraq-Iran war, Iran launched unprovoked attacks against Kuwaiti oil tankers. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mcgeezer
Joined: 17 Apr 2007
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 27, 2007 8:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
It's just simple old American hypocrisy;
-America used a bomb
-America has thousands of bombs
-America threatens to use bombs against Iran
-America let's other countries off the hook (Pakistan, India)
By no way, shape or form am i saying that Iran having a nuclear bomb is good for the region, but the double standards are exactly what is ticking off the Iranians pure and simple....and so it should |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 27, 2007 9:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
If I understand this position, which Managua's Daniel Ortega recently articulated at the United Nations, people are taking Washington's detonating nuclear weapons in Japan out of its Second-World-War context, as if it simply derived from American aggression against Japan, and then using this event to justify Tehran's nuclear-weapons program.
It mostly betrays how twisted some of you are. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mcgeezer
Joined: 17 Apr 2007
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 27, 2007 9:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I'm most definitely not justifying ANY countri nuclear weapons program.....i do support them having a civilian program, which if monitored properly (as being done by the United Nations) is not a threat to anyone.....
it's just funny that's all....
So what your saying also, then is in a war context, America is justified in using a nuclear weapon...Japan/owrld war/whatever...
Is that correct? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Dome Vans
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 27, 2007 9:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| It mostly betrays how twisted some of you are. |
Evil, Gopher, Evil. That's what we are. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 27, 2007 9:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| mcgeezer wrote: |
| So what your saying also, then is in a war context, America is justified in using a nuclear weapon... |
I am not speaking in generalities but only on the specific case involving Japan at the Second World-War's conclusion. The issue has been thoroughly muddled by the far-left on whether it was justifiable. Pointless discussion that will only lead to people personally-attacking those with whom they disagree.
Policymakers at the time feared massive American casualties in any mainland assault, they feared Soviet power in Japan, and they wanted to end the war before Moscow's forces occupied at least part of the home island.
American forces would certainly have won the war against Japan without these weapons. But it posed huge logistical issues, would have taken longer than it did to secure Tokyo's unconditional surrender, and today would potentially see North Japan and South Japan, something similar to what occurred in Korea. This would have created far more powerful psychological effects than the Chinese Revolution and the Korean War in America and the Cold War might have unfolded much more violently than it did.
Decide for yourself whether this was "justified," then. Few things are justifiable, I think. Mostly, they "just are." They are what they are. There is nothing good about deploying nuclear weapons against anyone. So my explaining the decision should not be confused with any attempt to justify it -- even if I might lean towards calling it "necessary at the time."
Last edited by Gopher on Thu Sep 27, 2007 9:21 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
